The impact of animated movies about animals on conservation

[Zoofan15]

Two films, Disney's Lion King and Dreamworks' Madagascar. I feel Lion King isn't too bad in realism when put against Madagascar 1 & 2.

Lion King had it’s lapses in reality - but I agree nothing could compete with a movie where a lion, hippo, giraffe and zebra have an amicable relationship with bouts of cooperation and mutual respect; liase with a troop of lemur which are apparently ignorant of the fact they’re supposed to follow a matriarchal social structure; and a flock of penguins pilot a ship, which they navigate competently to their ancestral homeland.

 

[amur leopard]

in terms of Disney the only thing that I really care about is their Disney fund for nature programe and for entirely pragmatic reasons.

Half true. DAK is a major player in many populations here in NA. They are as important as SDZSP for hoofstock, they breed multiple species on a regular basis and are providing animals to other zoos. One of my local okapis was born at DAK. They are also an important player for African Elephants, and even birds like the Carmine Bee-eater. DAK often isn't seen in a great light here on the site, but the reality is they are a very valuable facility. Not to mention they are AZA accredited.

Thank you @Great Argus, I didn't know about the extent to which Disney contributed to the AZA, in particular towards hoofstock

I think that Lion king is somewhat notorious here on zoochat because non endangered species were showcased, and now all that the average zoo guest wants to see is 'simba', 'timon', and 'pumba'.
The Jungle Book is far better in my opinion, showcasing endangered animals that actually do need increased awareness and conservation, such as Orangutans, Tigers, Dholes, and Asiatic black bears.

I fully agree with you, but I don't think it should be viewed as purely a negative force.

I'm not underestimating the role that the "Lion King" franchise had, quite the opposite actually, I do recognize that it has had an enormous impact on making a whole generation stupid when it comes to the natural world.

From personal experience, children of my age tend to be able, for example, to tell the difference between a lion and a tiger, in a way that most middle-aged adults, for example, can't, despite having been to multiple zoos (in fact one of the adults who couldn't tell the difference had been to SDZ if I remember correctly...).

I'm glad you think it has an enormous impact, but I don't see why you aren't seeing the positives. I'm convinced that 90% of people on the street would not know what a warthog or a meerkat is or would think that tigers lived in Africa were it not for the Lion King and Jungle Book respectively. And with all due respect, I don't think I would either, so again, before you dismiss the films' consequences, I present myself as a living, breathing, talking example that these films had an impact, and that hopefully, unless I am a truly horrible person, that impact was mainly good.

I maintain that the Lion King's release was much more beneficial to wildlife and zoos than another princess film.

Good for you, have you read the books by Rudyard Kipling that the "Jungle book" was based on too then ? If not then you might want to go and acquaint yourself with some actual literature rather than a children's film.

Actually I have read the book multiple times. Incidentally, the film enticed me into reading the book, so I guess there's another positive effect.

I've had ample time and experience to view the effects that the film has had on the general public and I haven't really seen any young conservationists emerge because of watching either of the films but it has generated a lot of banal catchphrases and cuddly toy sales no doubt.

Haha, again, me. Also, while I do not know any other examples directly, the film was not released early enough so that the generation affected is old enough to get to that stage. Furthermore, you pretend that the only positive impact a film like that can have is inspiring young conservationists. This is narrow minded and again ignoring all the other impacts the film can have.

Have you thought of the fact that in popularizing meerkats, Disney has in essence offered zoos a species that they can house, breed and import at low costs and bring in visitors easily with, where there was no other species like it before? Or that many people come to the zoo to see the meerkats or the warthogs when those species would hardly have attracted a second glance?

in terms of Disney the only thing that I really care about is their Disney fund for nature programe and for entirely pragmatic reasons.

I didn't actually say that they don't spend enough on conservation as that is something that you have misconstrued and implied because of your rather bizarre defensiveness about Disney.

What I actually said was that what they do spend on conservation with the Disney fund for nature is to be honest the only bit of Disney that I am interested in and generally appreciate and this for totally pragmatic reasons.

Fair enough, read it wrong - although surely if you are going to look at one part of Disney's contribution to conservation you should also look at the context and the organisation as a whole, not just the nature fund - its effect is far more wide reaching than that.

I would say that for most, cartoons and animals in media is what puts an interest of wildlife on young viewers' radars, while the documentaries entice them and turn them into full blown 'animal lovers'.

I would say that this is the correct interpretation of the films' outreach and effect. Thank you

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

From personal experience, children of my age tend to be able, for example, to tell the difference between a lion and a tiger, in a way that most middle-aged adults, for example, can't, despite having been to multiple zoos (in fact one of the adults who couldn't tell the difference had been to SDZ if I remember correctly...).

I'm glad you think it has an enormous impact, but I don't see why you aren't seeing the positives. I'm convinced that 90% of people on the street would not know what a warthog or a meerkat is or would think that tigers lived in Africa were it not for the Lion King and Jungle Book respectively. And with all due respect, I don't think I would either, so again, before you dismiss the films' consequences, I present myself as a living, breathing, talking example that these films had an impact, and that hopefully, unless I am a truly horrible person, that impact was mainly good.

I maintain that the Lion King's release was much more beneficial to wildlife and zoos than another princess film.



Actually I have read the book multiple times. Incidentally, the film enticed me into reading the book, so I guess there's another positive effect. Your assumption is just bizarre as well, no idea why you posted it.



Haha, again, me. Also, while I do not know any other examples directly, the film was not released early enough so that the generation affected is old enough to get to that stage. Furthermore, you pretend that the only positive impact a film like that can have is inspiring young conservationists. This is narrow minded and again ignoring all the other impacts the film can have.

Have you thought of the fact that in popularizing meerkats, Disney has in essence offered zoos a species that they can house, breed and import at low costs and bring in visitors easily with, where there was no other species like it before? Or that many people come to the zoo to see the meerkats or the warthogs when those species would hardly have attracted a second glance?





Fair enough, read it wrong - although surely if you are going to look at one part of Disney's contribution to conservation you should also look at the context and the organisation as a whole, not just the nature fund - its effect is far more wide reaching than that.



I would say that this is the correct interpretation of the films' outreach and effect. Thank you

Disney should keep making all of the multi-million dollar productions with singing and dancing anthromorphic animals that spout simple minded platitudes about life and then should keep funding us conservationists with at least some of the money generated from that. That is all well and good as far as I'm concerned.

I stand by those comments that Disney productions do make people quite ignorant about the natural world. I can't count the amount of times I've heard people (even adults) in zoos or elsewhere referring to the natural world through a disneyfied view of reality with catchphrases and all that jazz which I find quite pathetic and irritating.

Good that you've read Kipling's "The Jungle Book" , well done (try reading Kipling's poem "If" too when you can). I posted it because it is a well known phenomenon that Hollywood rips off great pieces of literature and most people are unaware that a great book lies behind a film.

 

[amur leopard]

Disney should keep making all of the multi-million dollar productions with singing and dancing anthromorphic animals that spout simple minded platitudes about life and then should keep funding us conservationists with at least some of the money generated from that. That is all well and good as far as I'm concerned.

I stand by those comments that Disney productions do make people quite ignorant about the natural world. I can't count the amount of times I've heard people (even adults) in zoos or elsewhere referring to the natural world through a disneyfied view of reality with catchphrases and all that jazz which I find quite pathetic and irritating.

Good that you've read Kipling's "The Jungle Book" , well done (try reading Kipling's poem "If" too when you can). I posted it because it is a well known phenomenon that Hollywood rips off great pieces of literature and most people are unaware that a great book lies behind a film.

As I have said before, would most people know of warthogs, meerkats or even hyenas were it not for the Lion King? I think not. While one has a right to find it irritating, to judge those who do it as stupid off the cuff just because they are uninformed in that field is not correct, politically or otherwise, not to mention the connotations around that word.

I have also read 'If' and I agree it is a very good work.

 

[Coelacanth18]

@Onychorhynchus coronatus while I don't disagree with you entirely about the fact that Disney could have done a better job in considering the impact they had on people's ideas about certain species and natural behaviors (ex: Lion King, according to several scientists and conservationists, caused a setback in rehabilitating the public's opinion of hyenas), I suspect you're ascribing too much responsibility to them.

Going back throughout history, at no point was the majority of the public ever knowledgeable or well-informed about wildlife or the natural world, with the exception of hunter-gatherer tribes. The Western countries are derived from a Judeo-Christian ideology as well as European cultural ideology (hard to disentangle the two) that had people thinking animals were mostly "beasts" with no emotions or consciousness, and that it was the obligation of humans to control and tame nature. To say that Disney is responsible for people's ignorance about the natural world seems to ignore the fact that people have largely been ignorant about the natural world for hundreds or even thousands of years.

I wouldn't go as far as saying I think it was a positive contributor as far as wildlife education goes, but @amur leopard's point about conservation and wildlife-minded people in our generations having movies like Disney's form some of the bedrock of our interest is valid. Connections made on an emotional level are (IMO) more impactful and more durable in the long run than simply information or education alone is, and Disney is no slouch in that department (usually, at least )

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

@Onychorhynchus coronatus while I don't disagree with you entirely about the fact that Disney could have done a better job in considering the impact they had on people's ideas about certain species and natural behaviors (ex: Lion King, according to several scientists and conservationists, caused a setback in rehabilitating the public's opinion of hyenas), I suspect you're ascribing too much responsibility to them.

Going back throughout history, at no point was the majority of the public ever knowledgeable or well-informed about wildlife or the natural world, with the exception of hunter-gatherer tribes. The Western countries are derived from a Judeo-Christian ideology as well as European cultural ideology (hard to disentangle the two) that had people thinking animals were mostly "beasts" with no emotions or consciousness, and that it was the obligation of humans to control and tame nature. To say that Disney is responsible for people's ignorance about the natural world seems to ignore the fact that people have largely been ignorant about the natural world for hundreds or even thousands of years.

I wouldn't go as far as saying I think it was a positive contributor as far as wildlife education goes, but @amur leopard's point about conservation and wildlife-minded people in our generations having movies like Disney's form some of the bedrock of our interest is valid. Connections made on an emotional level are (IMO) more impactful and more durable in the long run than simply information or education alone is, and Disney is no slouch in that department (usually, at least )

Actually that is a really good point and very well made @Coelacanth18 I totally agree that hunter gatherer societies (maybe early agriculturalists and some pastoralist groups too to a lesser extent) would be the most informed about wildlife / the natural world / animal behaviour for very obvious reasons.

Yes, again, another brilliant point you've made that Western societies thinking on animals and the natural world is largely a product of Judeo-Christian concepts of nature (though there are thankfully traces of the pagan / pre-Christian past in there too).

Actually the three Judeo-Christian / Abrahamic religions are worldviews that I personally truly dislike for that precise reason and many others besides.

I wasn't suggesting that Disney is entirely responsible for that ignorance by any means and how I would frame it if I could again would be to say was that it is merely the latest chapter in a long line of general ignorance of the natural world.

Again, great point ! I wholeheartedly agree that an emotional connection and salience with the natural world is a requisite for the promotion of attitudes that are receptive to conservation of biodiversity.

However, I do not think this has to come from Disney and I absolutely do not believe it should be left in the hands of crass comercialism to educate people about biodiversity (though I acknowledge that there are certain benefits of that comercialism like the Disney fund for nature ).

I believe there are actually literally thousands of ways that we can promote an emotional identification and salience for wildlife in people whether that be through documentaries, art, theatre, conservation guerilla marketing, literature, Children's t.v. programes etc.

In fact social science proves the point over and over again that there are an infinite number of ways to educate people about nature.

 

[Jurek7]

@Onychorhynchus coronatus The Western countries are derived from a Judeo-Christian ideology as well as European cultural ideology (hard to disentangle the two) that had people thinking animals were mostly "beasts" with no emotions or consciousness, and that it was the obligation of humans to control and tame nature.

Not. Animals lacking emotions or consciousness it is Kant, 18.th century. Judeo-Christian religions show animals, if anything, more moral than they are (think lions, ravens or donkeys helping prophets or bees, hyraxes or sheep used as an example of good conduct). Modern Christian teaching is big on nature protection, which is I think itself twisting ancient religious texts a little, although in a good way.

 

[RatioTile]

I wouldn’t characterize all Disney animated films as presenting “simple platitudes of life.” Their target audiences are younger children and they are meant to educate them through analogies acted out by fictional characters who might not be scientifically accurate. For many late 80’s-early 90’s kids, The Lion King was their first exposure to grief and how to deal with the loss of a loved one. It also deals with the themes of personal responsibility and developing emotional maturity. Moreover, there is the issue of philosophical stances on life and the universe, with Simba inheriting from Mufasa the view that life follows a circle and nature has cycles, whereas Timon and Pumbaa think life is linear and comes to nothing more after a halt.

Yeah, I would say that although they may not be as deep as say, the works of Studio Ghibli, Disney (and Pixar, and to a lesser extent Dreamworks, Blue Sky, and Illumination) films contain valuable lessons for children and adults, tied together by their characters’ foci on identity, often losing innocence and shedding naivety while going on journeys to become wiser. The same goes for Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the DC Extended Universe. You could argue that they’re cheap and mainstream entertainment, but for the most part the production crews put a lot of thought into them.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

I wouldn’t characterize all Disney animated films as presenting “simple platitudes of life.” Their target audiences are younger children and they are meant to educate them through analogies acted out by fictional characters who might not be scientifically accurate. For many late 80’s-early 90’s kids, The Lion King was their first exposure to grief and how to deal with the loss of a loved one. It also deals with the themes of personal responsibility and developing emotional maturity. Moreover, there is the issue of philosophical stances on life and the universe, with Simba inheriting from Mufasa the view that life follows a circle and nature has cycles, whereas Timon and Pumbaa think life is linear and comes to nothing more after a halt.

Yeah, I would say that although they may not be as deep as say, the works of Studio Ghibli, Disney (and Pixar, and to a lesser extent Dreamworks, Blue Sky, and Illumination) films contain valuable lessons for children and adults, tied together by their characters’ foci on identity, often losing innocence and shedding naivety while going on journeys to become wiser. The same goes for Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the DC Extended Universe. You could argue that they’re cheap and mainstream entertainment, but for the most part the production crews put a lot of thought into them.

I'm glad you mentioned Studio Ghibli as that is an interesting and refreshing example in that it is an animation with a strong Shinto influence and view on nature.

 

[RatioTile]

What about the Toho Kaijuverse and the newer Legendary Pictures adaptations? They deal with themes of environmentalism, invasive species, war, and climate change, and also present some creative, albeit unscientific, takes on ecology and evolutionary biology.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Not. Animals lacking emotions or consciousness it is Kant, 18.th century. Judeo-Christian religions show animals, if anything, more moral than they are (think lions, ravens or donkeys helping prophets or bees, hyraxes or sheep used as an example of good conduct). Modern Christian teaching is big on nature protection, which is I think itself twisting ancient religious texts a little, although in a good way.

That isn't really what I meant but I know that philosophers like Kant and Descartes (a century or two earlier?) argued that animals were merely automatons or robot-like.

In my opinion it was the philosophers like Nietzsche (my favourite philosopher) and Montaigne who had the right idea about animals and viewing man as an animal in denial of his origin.

Yes, there are examples from the Judeo-Christian / Abrahamic religions where animals play a symbolic or positive role with the principal religious leaders like Jesus Christ with his doves and Muhammed with his favourite pet cat or whatever.

However, what I am getting is more the overall / overarching worldview towards the natural world that emerges from the three monotheistic religions which is that nature is man's to do what he wants with and to exploit as much as he wants.

That is the very essence of the "birth right" of man according to these supremely arrogant Iron age religions (with Marxism which it could be argued is a secular religion of sorts you just get something slightly different but also in the same vein with "the conquest of nature").

These are anthropocenic religions that place mankind and its importance / dominance over all living organisms and ecosystems because ultimately man is "created" in the image of "god" and therefore can behave as god.

Yes, there are many other factors that have contributed to the present environmental crisis but I would argue that the three Abrahamic religions have had an enormous role and complicity in this too. It could be argued that the roots of todays crisis at least partly have sprung up from these religions.

You still see it actually occurring right now as we speak in Brazil with the deforestation of the Amazon.

Who are those pushing for the destruction of the Amazon afterall?

Bolsonaro and Blairo Maggi and their supporters are primarily evangelical Christians and they are actually not being inconsistent with their worldview and actions in what they are doing. Ultimately they are just following what the the Bible suggests that man do down to a T.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

What about the Toho Kaijuverse and the newer Legendary Pictures adaptations? They deal with themes of environmentalism, invasive species, war, and climate change, and also present some creative, albeit unscientific, takes on ecology and evolutionary biology.

They are far superior to Disney IMO.

 

[dinosauria]

Not sure about the Kaiju/Monsterverse - while these film do deal with these, it's far from accurate, doesn't really make people want to learn more about the environment, and has had so many...unfortunate moments with the human characters who actually exist to supply the themes in the first place that most audiences are just in it for the monster fights.

 

[Onychorhynchus coronatus]

Not sure about the Kaiju/Monsterverse - while these film do deal with these, it's far from accurate, doesn't really make people want to learn more about the environment, and has had so many...unfortunate moments with the human characters who actually exist to supply the themes in the first place that most audiences are just in it for the monster fights.

I don't know about these in great detail but many of the Japanese animations that are influenced by and deal with Shinto themes are personally very interesting for me.

I think this is because Shinto is in essence a primal and earth-centred and affirming religion (and life affirming for the human condition too ?) in the sense of the reverence for nature.

Shinto is not anthropocentric nor monotheistic as it is pantheistic and it's roots are deeply animistic and so it places man amongst nature and the "Kami".

It does not place man a cut above all living organisms and in that sense it will always be a greater and truer ally to conservation than any of the Judeo-Christian religions even in their revisionist and pro-environment forms.

 

[Thomas]

I think it’s a good thing it introduces people to animals even ones that they haven’t heard of and some movies have environmental messages.
An example with animals associated with
The Lion King-lions(of course), hornbills, mandrills, meerkats, warthogs, and hyenas. This also includes the background animals like giraffes, elephants, zebras, ostriches, antelopes, buffaloes, rhinos, hippos, flamingoes, and the live action version included animals like aardvarks, bat-eared foxes, Bush babies, and elephants shrews.
environmental message: that the earth is a living planet and like Mufasa would say “All living things exist together in a delicate balance”, and ecosystems needs every organisms like plants, animals (predator and prey), and microorganisms to function and so we are all connected in the Great “Circle of Life”.

 

[Thomas]

Rio and it’s sequel introduces viewers to parrots like the lesser known critically endangeredaim characters who are Spix’s Macaws and highlights the message of the illegal pet trade and deforestation of the Amazon.